PEOPLE WHO USE THE WORD AUTHORITARIAN

Oh no, is that another word you don’t know the definition of? Try looking it up! That’s what we do when we don’t know what words mean.

IM JUST TELLING YOU FACTS

In all caps with incessant ad hominem, attitude, and emotion. If you could skip all that, get a handle on your emotions, and actually “just tell me facts” this would be a far more productive conversation and much less unpleasant for you.

AND REFUSES TO LARN HOW REALITY WORKS

Not at all! As i said, first i have to figure out what it is you are trying to teach about how reality works (which is made much harder with your constant bitching), and then i have to validate it is correct! We are still on step one, but this would go much faster without all your drama. This is a mundane conversation that doesn’t warrant any offense, and your emotions and your pride are getting the better of you :(

4. “please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.”

Since there are so many examples “ALL OVER THIS THREAD” why can’t/couldn’t you mention even one specifically?

5. I'll skip this part

You skip a lot, but what i write is for your benefit - not mine. Your all caps and vapid insult have no impact on me, they only hurt you :( It is sad that you can’t see that, and i want to help you to be able to communicate effectively with me and others in the future if i can. On the other hand, you can continue to refuse my help and just “skip” the whole conversation!

CORECT YOUR WRONG IS NOT PART OF TEACHING

If you want to teach people, or even just communicate with them effectively - a necessary prerequisite to teaching, you have to have them tell you what you told them in their own words/understanding. This is what “examination” [aka exams] are for in education. Just because you have taught/said something to someone doesn’t mean they automatically understand it properly - you have to check! Yes, a lot of teaching is correcting peoples errors in understanding and repetition is necessary to effectively teach/communicate.

YOU HAVE NO DUTY

I disagree with this degenerate libertine “philosophy”. We have duty, and a part of it is to share the truth we discover with others. Even if we didn’t have such a duty, we should want to to expose that truth to criticism for refinement, to encounter other’s truth, and to make the world better through the elimination of ignorance [the cause of evil]! You can never have too much truth! I agree that truth is an ideal, and i am more than happy to settle for validated/demonstrable fact in the meantime.

NO, NOT AT ALL, SILENCE IS GOLDEN, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO STFU

Fair enough, if you feel that way - then practice what you preach and don’t share your “truth” in the future. Simple. As for me, i like to learn from others and to communicate and that can’t be done through silence. Enjoy your monastery and quiet contemplation (it should help you)!

SO APPEAL TO CON-SENSES

As i’ve told you before, you have been spending too much time steeped in the flat earth psyop - it’s bad for you. This isn’t a debate, which is a stupid game to keep morons busy - this is (supposed to be) an earnest discussion. It is not an appeal to consensus when you point out the fact that words have definitions, and that if you use different/opposite definitions you need to make that clear to the person you are discussing with if you want to communicate with them. It’s basic semantics/language, not appeal to anything.

OK, WHICH PERCENTASGE OF LIGHT BLOCKING?

Opacity is a scale, opaque is the maximum on that scale (100% of visible light to answer your question) - everything beneath that maximum is translucent and then the minimum - transparent.

Opaque means visible light (typically. in a scientific context it can refer to non-visible light frequencies) blocking - not partial / not a percentage of it - all of it. The ground is opaque and so we can not see through it. If it were non-opaque we could see through all of it or colloquially - through some of it.

DEPTH IS QUITE PHYSICAL, ITS REALLY THERE

Who said it wasn’t? It is just that depth appears [looks] different because of the laws of perspective. In reality it is exactly the same as the other dimensions (length and width), just in another axis.

“ Do you understand what i am saying now?” YES

You misspelt “no”. You might want to read it again and try to understand it earnestly. If you still don’t understand what i mean, and/or disagree then ask questions and/or provide specific criticism. Repeating “No you’re wrong, la la la la i can’t hear you” over and over is not specific criticism, it is embarrassing childish stupidity.

APPERENT DOES NOT MEAN ILLUSION, IT MEANS ostensible rather than actual

If there is a difference between ostensible and actual - then there is a necessary component of illusion/misunderstanding involved. If you take offense at the word, insert a synonym - instead of “illusion” read “not actual”.

Then you’ll agree and stop bitching?

IT DOESNT MAKE THAT GROUND AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Right, as i said repeatedly - the ground is not an optical illusion (that would be stupid), the apparent rising of it is! As you said, it appears to rise but it isn’t actually.

BUT ITS JUST AN OPTICAL BATTLE OF TWO APPERENTS THINGS AND THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER

In terms of brightness - usually the deciding factor in “winning” (like with the stars during daylight) - the sun would always win.

Light can’t block other light, and though it can “wash out” dimmer light making it appear to us that it is blocked (like with light from the stars during daylight) the brighter light never “loses” in such “contests”.

In any case, your belief that it can cannot be demonstrated (on a smaller scale / repeatable controlled demonstration) which is another good indicator that it is wrong.

NO ONE SAID MAKING MODEL WAS EASY

I don’t care for models. I care about determining what is going on in reality, and that is NOT what models are for.

LOOK AT 25 PHOTOS OF A ZOOMED IN HORIZON WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THINGS PROTRUDING FROM THE HORIZON, NOTICE HOW THINGS BEFORE THE HORIZON ARE 3D WHILE THINGS BEYOND THE HORIZON ARE NOT

Photos are 2D. They cannot (and do not) contain depth. No matter where the photographed target is - closer than, beyond, over the horizon - it will always be 2D!

Do you have, or can you find, 2 photographs (any two photographs) where you think one has depth in it and the other doesn’t? It may help to convey what you are thinking/saying.

oH LOOK, ANTHER BASELESS CLAIM

As i’ve said before, what better base can there be for a claim than your own observations?! Go outside, watch a plane receding from you overhead. It will change apparent size as it does so. Take pictures so you can compare the size when overhead to the size as it approaches the horizon.

You really don’t seem to understand why things change apparent/angular size as they recede - otherwise you couldn’t believe that it would stop at some distance. You’re locked into defending some stupid position because you are trapped in a “debate” in your imagination (against yourself!). The sun doesn’t change apparent size MUCH, but that is no reason to get locked in to your position.

DID THE DEPTH DISAPEAR?

Yes! That’s what i’ve been saying to you this whole time. Depth comes from two eyes. Perspective doesn’t disappear (which causes the illusion/“not actual”/apparent tapering towards the vanishing point), at any distance. Depth disappears the moment you close one eye.

“your foolish pride” PROJECTION

I’m only trying to help you - for both our benefits, despite your protests and childish behavior. It is not pride that encourages me to continue trying to discuss with/reach you. It IS your pride which prevents you from just no longer responding, communicating effectively, and enjoying this discussion which is about a topic you clearly/should have a great interest in!

PEOPLE WHO USE THE WORD AUTHORITARIAN

Oh no, is that another word you don’t know the definition of? Try looking it up! That’s what we do when we don’t know what words mean.

IM JUST TELLING YOU FACTS

In all caps with incessant ad hominem, attitude, and emotion. If you could skip all that, get a handle on your emotions, and actually “just tell me facts” this would be a far more productive conversation and much less unpleasant for you.

AND REFUSES TO LARN HOW REALITY WORKS

Not at all! As i said, first i have to figure out what it is you are trying to teach about how reality works (which is made much harder with your constant bitching), and then i have to validate it is correct! We are still on step one, but this would go much faster without all your drama. This is a mundane conversation that doesn’t warrant any offense, and your emotions and your pride are getting the better of you :(

4. “please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.”

Since there are so many examples “ALL OVER THIS THREAD” why can’t/couldn’t you mention even one specifically?

5. I'll skip this part

You skip a lot, but what i write is for your benefit - not mine. Your all caps and vapid insult have no impact on me, they only hurt you :( It is sad that you can’t see that, and i want to help you to be able to communicate effectively with me and others in the future if i can. On the other hand, you can continue to refuse my help and just “skip” the whole conversation!

CORECT YOUR WRONG IS NOT PART OF TEACHING

If you want to teach people, or even just communicate with them effectively - a necessary prerequisite to teaching, you have to have them tell you what you told them in their own words/understanding. This is what “examination” [aka exams] are for in education. Just because you have taught/said something to someone doesn’t mean they automatically understand it properly - you have to check! Yes, a lot of teaching is correcting peoples errors in understanding and repetition is necessary to effectively teach/communicate.

YOU HAVE NO DUTY

I disagree with this degenerate libertine “philosophy”. We have duty, and a part of it is to share the truth we discover with others. Even if we didn’t have such a duty, we should want to to expose that truth to criticism for refinement, to encounter other’s truth, and to make the world better through the elimination of ignorance [the cause of evil]! You can never have too much truth! I agree that truth is an ideal, and i am more than happy to settle for validated/demonstrable fact in the meantime.

NO, NOT AT ALL, SILENCE IS GOLDEN, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO STFU

Fair enough, if you feel that way - then practice what you preach and don’t share your “truth” in the future. Simple. As for me, i like to learn from others and to communicate and that can’t be done through silence. Enjoy your monastery and quiet contemplation (if should help you)!

SO APPEAL TO CON-SENSES

As i’ve told you before, you have been spending too much time steeped in the flat earth psyop - it’s bad for you. This isn’t a debate, which is a stupid game to keep morons busy - this is (supposed to be) an earnest discussion. It is not an appeal to consensus when you point out the fact that words have definitions, and that if you use different/opposite definitions you need to make that clear to the person you are discussing with if you want to communicate with them. It’s basic semantics/language, not appeal to anything.

OK, WHICH PERCENTASGE OF LIGHT BLOCKING?

Opacity is a scale, opaque is the maximum on that scale (100% of visible light to answer your question) - everything beneath that maximum is translucent and then the minimum - transparent.

Opaque means visible light (typically. in a scientific context it can refer to non-visible light frequencies) blocking - not partial / not a percentage of it - all of it. The ground is opaque and so we can not see through it. If it were non-opaque we could see through all of it or colloquially - through some of it.

DEPTH IS QUITE PHYSICAL, ITS REALLY THERE

Who said it wasn’t? It is just that depth appears [looks] different because of the laws of perspective. In reality it is exactly the same as the other dimensions (length and width), just in another axis.

“ Do you understand what i am saying now?” YES

You misspelt “no”. You might want to read it again and try to understand it earnestly. If you still don’t understand what i mean, and/or disagree then ask questions and/or provide specific criticism. Repeating “No you’re wrong, la la la la i can’t hear you” over and over is not specific criticism, it is embarrassing childish stupidity.

APPERENT DOES NOT MEAN ILLUSION, IT MEANS ostensible rather than actual

If there is a difference between ostensible and actual - then there is a necessary component of illusion/misunderstanding involved. If you take offense at the word, insert a synonym - instead of “illusion” read “not actual”.

Then you’ll agree and stop bitching?

IT DOESNT MAKE THAT GROUND AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Right, as i said repeatedly - the ground is not an optical illusion (that would be stupid), the apparent rising of it is! As you said, it appears to rise but it isn’t actually.

BUT ITS JUST AN OPTICAL BATTLE OF TWO APPERENTS THINGS AND THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER

In terms of brightness - usually the deciding factor in “winning” (like with the stars during daylight) - the sun would always win.

Light can’t block other light, and though it can “wash out” dimmer light making it appear to us that it is blocked (like with light from the stars during daylight) the brighter light never “loses” in such “contests”.

In any case, your belief that it can cannot be demonstrated (on a smaller scale / repeatable controlled demonstration) which is another good indicator that it is wrong.

NO ONE SAID MAKING MODEL WAS EASY

I don’t care for models. I care about determining what is going on in reality, and that is NOT what models are for.

LOOK AT 25 PHOTOS OF A ZOOMED IN HORIZON WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THINGS PROTRUDING FROM THE HORIZON, NOTICE HOW THINGS BEFORE THE HORIZON ARE 3D WHILE THINGS BEYOND THE HORIZON ARE NOT

Photos are 2D. They cannot (and do not) contain depth. No matter where the photographed target is - closer than, beyond, over the horizon - it will always be 2D!

Do you have, or can you find, 2 photographs (any two photographs) where you think one has depth in it and the other doesn’t? It may help to convey what you are thinking/saying.

oH LOOK, ANTHER BASELESS CLAIM

As i’ve said before, what better base can there be for a claim than your own observations?! Go outside, watch a plane receding from you overhead. It will change apparent size as it does so. Take pictures so you can compare the size when overhead to the size as it approaches the horizon.

You really don’t seem to understand why things change apparent/angular size as they recede - otherwise you couldn’t believe that it would stop at some distance. You’re locked into defending some stupid position because you are trapped in a “debate” in your imagination (against yourself!). The sun doesn’t change apparent size MUCH, but that is no reason to get locked in to your position.

DID THE DEPTH DISAPEAR?

Yes! That’s what i’ve been saying to you this whole time. Depth comes from two eyes. Perspective doesn’t disappear (which causes the illusion/“not actual”/apparent tapering towards the vanishing point), at any distance. Depth disappears the moment you close one eye.

“your foolish pride” PROJECTION

I’m only trying to help you - for both our benefits, despite your protests and childish behavior. It is not pride that encourages me to continue trying to discuss with/reach you. It IS your pride which prevents you from just no longer responding, communicating effectively, and enjoying this discussion which is about a topic you clearly/should have a great interest in!

PEOPLE WHO USE THE WORD AUTHORITARIAN

Oh no, is that another word you don’t know the definition of? Try looking it up! That’s what we do when we don’t know what words mean.

IM JUST TELLING YOU FACTS

In all caps with incessant ad hominem, attitude, and emotion. If you could skip all that, get a handle on your emotions, and actually “just tell me facts” this would be a far more productive conversation and much less unpleasant for you.

AND REFUSES TO LARN HOW REALITY WORKS

Not at all! As i said, first i have to figure out what it is you are trying to teach about how reality works (which is made much harder with your constant bitching), and then i have to validate it is correct! We are still on step one, but this would go much faster without all your drama. This is a mundane conversation that doesn’t warrant any offense, and your emotions and your pride are getting the better of you :(

4. “please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.”

Since there are so many examples “ALL OVER THIS THREAD” why can’t/couldn’t you mention even one specifically?

5. I'll skip this part

You skip a lot, but what i write is for your benefit - not mine. Your all caps and vapid insult have no impact on me, they only hurt you :( It is sad that you can’t see that, and i want to help you to be able to communicate effectively with me and others in the future if i can. On the other hand, you can continue to refuse my help and just “skip” the whole conversation!

CORECT YOUR WRONG IS NOT PART OF TEACHING

If you want to teach people, or even just communicate with them effectively - a necessary prerequisite to teaching, you have to have them tell you what you told them in their own words/understanding. This is what “examination” [aka exams] are for in education. Just because you have taught/said something to someone doesn’t mean they automatically understand it properly - you have to check! Yes, a lot of teaching is correcting peoples errors in understanding and repetition is necessary to effectively teach/communicate.

YOU HAVE NO DUTY

I disagree with this degenerate libertine “philosophy”. We have duty, and a part of it is to share the truth we discover with others. Even if we didn’t have such a duty, we should want to to expose that truth to criticism for refinement, to encounter other’s truth, and to make the world better through the elimination of ignorance [the cause of evil]! You can never have too much truth! I agree that truth is an ideal, and i am more than happy to settle for validated/demonstrable fact in the meantime.

NO, NOT AT ALL, SILENCE IS GOLDEN, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO STFU

Fair enough, if you feel that way - then practice what you preach and don’t share your “truth” in the future. Simple. As for me, i like to learn from others and to communicate and that can’t be done through silence. Enjoy your monastery and quiet contemplation (if should help you)!

SO APPEAL TO CON-SENSES

As i’ve told you before, you have been spending too much time steeped in the flat earth psyop - it’s bad for you. This isn’t a debate, which is a stupid game to keep morons busy - this is (supposed to be) an earnest discussion. It is not an appeal to consensus when you point out the fact that words have definitions, and that if you use different/opposite definitions you need to make that clear to the person you are discussing with if you want to communicate with them. It’s basic semantics/language, not appeal to anything.

OK, WHICH PERCENTASGE OF LIGHT BLOCKING?

Opacity is a scale, opaque is the maximum on that scale (100% of visible light to answer your question) - everything beneath that maximum is translucent and then the minimum - transparent.

Opaque means visible light (typically. in a scientific context it can refer to non-visible light frequencies) blocking - not partial / not a percentage of it - all of it. The ground is opaque and so we can not see through it. If it were non-opaque we could see through all of it or colloquially - through some of it.

DEPTH IS QUITE PHYSICAL, ITS REALLY THERE

Who said it wasn’t? It is just that depth appears [looks] different because of the laws of perspective. In reality it is exactly the same as the other dimensions (length and width), just in another axis.

“ Do you understand what i am saying now?” YES

You misspelt “no”. You might want to read it again and try to understand it earnestly. If you still don’t understand what i mean, and/or disagree then ask questions and/or provide specific criticism. Repeating “No you’re wrong, la la la la i can’t hear you” over and over is not specific criticism, it is embarrassing childish stupidity.

APPERENT DOES NOT MEAN ILLUSION, IT MEANS ostensible rather than actual

If there is a difference between ostensible and actual - then there is a necessary component of illusion/misunderstanding involved. If you take offense at the word, insert a synonym - instead of “illusion” read “not actual”.

Then you’ll agree and stop bitching?

IT DOESNT MAKE THAT GROUND AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Right, as i said repeatedly - the ground is not an optical illusion (that would be stupid), the apparent rising of it is! As you said, it appears to rise but it isn’t actually.

BUT ITS JUST AN OPTICAL BATTLE OF TWO APPERENTS THINGS AND THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER

In terms of brightness - usually the deciding factor in “winning” (like with the stars during daylight) - the sun would always win.

Light can’t block other light, and though it can “wash out” dimmer light making it appear to us that it is blocked (like with light from the stars during daylight) the brighter light never “loses” in such “contests”.

In any case, your belief that it can cannot be demonstrated (on a smaller scale / repeatable controlled demonstration) which is another good indicator that it is wrong.

NO ONE SAID MAKING MODEL WAS EASY

I don’t care for models. I care about determining what is going on in reality, and that is NOT what models are for.

LOOK AT 25 PHOTOS OF A ZOOMED IN HORIZON WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THINGS PROTRUDING FROM THE HORIZON, NOTICE HOW THINGS BEFORE THE HORIZON ARE 3D WHILE THINGS BEYOND THE HORIZON ARE NOT

Photos are 2D. They cannot (and do not) contain depth. No matter where the photographed target is - closer than, beyond, over the horizon - it will always be 2D!

Do you have, or can you find, 2 photographs (any two photographs) where you think one has depth in it and the other doesn’t? It may help to convey what you are thinking/saying.

oH LOOK, ANTHER BASELESS CLAIM

As i’ve said before, what better base can there be for a claim than your own observations?! Go outside, watch a plane receding from you overhead. It will change apparent size as it does so. Take pictures so you can compare the size when overhead to the size as it approaches the horizon.

You really don’t seem to understand why things change apparent/angular size as they recede - otherwise you couldn’t believe that it would stop at some distance. You’re locked into defending some stupid position because you are trapped in a “debate” in your imagination (against yourself!). The sun doesn’t change apparent size MUCH, but that is no reason to get locked in to your position.

DID THE DEPTH DISAPEAR?

Yes! That’s what i’ve been saying to you this whole time. Depth comes from two eyes. Perspective doesn’t disappear (which causes the illusion/“not actual”/apparent tapering towards the vanishing point), at any distance. Depth disappears the moment you close one eye.

“your foolish pride” PROJECTION

I’m only trying to help you - for both our benefits, despite your protests and childish behavior. It is not pride that encourages me to continue trying to discuss/reach you. It IS your pride which prevents you from just no longer responding, communicating effectively, and enjoying this discussion which is about a topic you clearly/should have a great interest in!

PEOPLE WHO USE THE WORD AUTHORITARIAN

Oh no, is that another word you don’t know the definition of? Try looking it up! That’s what we do when we don’t know what words mean.

IM JUST TELLING YOU FACTS

In all caps with incessant ad hominem, attitude, and emotion. If you could skip all that, get a handle on your emotions, and actually “just tell me facts” this would be a far more productive conversation and much less unpleasant for you.

AND REFUSES TO LARN HOW REALITY WORKS

Not at all! As i said, first i have to figure out what it is you are trying to teach about how reality works (which is made much harder with your constant bitching), and then i have to validate it is correct! We are still on step one, but this would go much faster without all your drama. This is a mundane conversation that doesn’t warrant any offense, and your emotions and your pride are getting the better of you :(

4. “please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.”

Since there are so many examples “ALL OVER THIS THREAD” why can’t/couldn’t you mention even one specifically?

5. I'll skip this part

You skip a lot, but what i write is for your benefit - not mine. Your all caps and vapid insult have no impact on me, they only hurt you :( It is sad that you can’t see that, and i want to help you to be able to communicate effectively with me and others in the future if i can. On the other hand, you can continue to refuse my help and just “skip” the whole conversation!

CORECT YOUR WRONG IS NOT PART OF TEACHING

If you want to teach people, or even just communicate with them effectively - a necessary prerequisite to teaching, you have to have them tell you what you told them in their own words/understanding. This is what “examination” [aka exams] are for in education. Just because you have taught/said something to someone doesn’t mean they automatically understand it properly - you have to check! Yes, a lot of teaching is correcting peoples errors in understanding and repetition is necessary to effectively teach/communicate.

YOU HAVE NO DUTY

I disagree with this degenerate libertine “philosophy”. We have duty, and a part of it is to share the truth we discover with others. Even if we didn’t have such a duty, we should want to to expose that truth to criticism for refinement, to encounter other’s truth, and to make the world better through the elimination of ignorance [the cause of evil]! You can never have too much truth! I agree that truth is an ideal, and i am more than happy to settle for validated/demonstrable fact in the meantime.

NO, NOT AT ALL, SILENCE IS GOLDEN, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO STFU

Fair enough, if you feel that way - then practice what you preach and don’t share your “truth” in the future. Simple. As for me, i like to learn from others and to communicate and that can’t be done through silence. Enjoy your monastery and quiet contemplation (if should help you)!

SO APPEAL TO CON-SENSES

As i’ve told you before, you have been spending too much time steeped in the flat earth psyop - it’s bad for you. This isn’t a debate, which is a stupid game to keep morons busy - this is (supposed to be) an earnest discussion. It is not an appeal to consensus when you point out the fact that words have definitions, and that if you use different/opposite definitions you need to make that clear to the person you are discussing with if you want to communicate with them. It’s basic semantics/language, not appeal to anything.

OK, WHICH PERCENTASGE OF LIGHT BLOCKING?

Opacity is a scale, opaque is the maximum on that scale (100% of visible light to answer your question) - everything beneath that maximum is translucent and then the minimum - transparent.

Opaque means visible light blocking - not partial / not a percentage of it - all of it. The ground is opaque and so we can not see through it. If it were non-opaque we could see through all of it or colloquially - through some of it.

DEPTH IS QUITE PHYSICAL, ITS REALLY THERE

Who said it wasn’t? It is just that depth appears [looks] different because of the laws of perspective. In reality it is exactly the same as the other dimensions (length and width), just in another axis.

“ Do you understand what i am saying now?” YES

You misspelt “no”. You might want to read it again and try to understand it earnestly. If you still don’t understand what i mean, and/or disagree then ask questions and/or provide specific criticism. Repeating “No you’re wrong, la la la la i can’t hear you” over and over is not specific criticism, it is embarrassing childish stupidity.

APPERENT DOES NOT MEAN ILLUSION, IT MEANS ostensible rather than actual

If there is a difference between ostensible and actual - then there is a necessary component of illusion/misunderstanding involved. If you take offense at the word, insert a synonym - instead of “illusion” read “not actual”.

Then you’ll agree and stop bitching?

IT DOESNT MAKE THAT GROUND AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Right, as i said repeatedly - the ground is not an optical illusion (that would be stupid), the apparent rising of it is! As you said, it appears to rise but it isn’t actually.

BUT ITS JUST AN OPTICAL BATTLE OF TWO APPERENTS THINGS AND THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER

In terms of brightness - usually the deciding factor in “winning” (like with the stars during daylight) - the sun would always win.

Light can’t block other light, and though it can “wash out” dimmer light making it appear to us that it is blocked (like with light from the stars during daylight) the brighter light never “loses” in such “contests”.

In any case, your belief that it can cannot be demonstrated (on a smaller scale / repeatable controlled demonstration) which is another good indicator that it is wrong.

NO ONE SAID MAKING MODEL WAS EASY

I don’t care for models. I care about determining what is going on in reality, and that is NOT what models are for.

LOOK AT 25 PHOTOS OF A ZOOMED IN HORIZON WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THINGS PROTRUDING FROM THE HORIZON, NOTICE HOW THINGS BEFORE THE HORIZON ARE 3D WHILE THINGS BEYOND THE HORIZON ARE NOT

Photos are 2D. They cannot (and do not) contain depth. No matter where the photographed target is - closer than, beyond, over the horizon - it will always be 2D!

Do you have, or can you find, 2 photographs (any two photographs) where you think one has depth in it and the other doesn’t? It may help to convey what you are thinking/saying.

oH LOOK, ANTHER BASELESS CLAIM

As i’ve said before, what better base can there be for a claim than your own observations?! Go outside, watch a plane receding from you overhead. It will change apparent size as it does so. Take pictures so you can compare the size when overhead to the size as it approaches the horizon.

You really don’t seem to understand why things change apparent/angular size as they recede - otherwise you couldn’t believe that it would stop at some distance. You’re locked into defending some stupid position because you are trapped in a “debate” in your imagination (against yourself!). The sun doesn’t change apparent size MUCH, but that is no reason to get locked in to your position.

DID THE DEPTH DISAPEAR?

Yes! That’s what i’ve been saying to you this whole time. Depth comes from two eyes. Perspective doesn’t disappear (which causes the illusion/“not actual”/apparent tapering towards the vanishing point), at any distance. Depth disappears the moment you close one eye.

“your foolish pride” PROJECTION

I’m only trying to help you - for both our benefits, despite your protests and childish behavior. It is not pride that encourages me to continue trying to discuss/reach you. It IS your pride which prevents you from just no longer responding, communicating effectively, and enjoying this discussion which is about a topic you clearly/should have a great interest in!

PEOPLE WHO USE THE WORD AUTHORITARIAN

Oh no, is that another word you don’t know the definition of? Try looking it up! That’s what we do when we don’t know what words mean.

IM JUST TELLING YOU FACTS

In all caps with incessant ad hominem, attitude, and emotion. If you could skip all that, get a handle on your emotions, and actually “just tell me facts” this would be a far more productive conversation and much less unpleasant for you.

AND REFUSES TO LARN HOW REALITY WORKS

Not at all! As i said, first i have to figure out what it is you are trying to teach about how reality works (which is made much harder with your constant bitching), and then i have to validate it is correct! We are still on step one, but this would go much faster without all your drama. This is a mundane conversation that doesn’t warrant any offense, and your emotions and your pride are getting the better of you :(

4. “please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.”

Since there are so many examples “ALL OVER THIS THREAD” why can’t/couldn’t you mention even one specifically?

5. I'll skip this part

You skip a lot, but what i write is for your benefit - not mine. Your all caps and vapid insult have no impact on me, they only hurt you :( It is sad that you can’t see that, and i want to help you to be able to communicate effectively with me and others in the future if i can. On the other hand, you can continue to refuse my help and just “skip” the whole conversation!

CORECT YOUR WRONG IS NOT PART OF TEACHING

If you want to teach people, or even just communicate with them effectively - a necessary prerequisite to teaching, you have to have them tell you what you told them in their own words/understanding. This is what “examination” [aka exams] are for in education. Just because you have taught/said something to someone doesn’t mean they automatically understand it properly - you have to check! Yes, a lot of teaching is correcting peoples errors in understanding and repetition is necessary to effectively teach/communicate.

YOU HAVE NO DUTY

I disagree with this degenerate libertine “philosophy”. We have duty, and a part of it is to share the truth we discover with others. Even if we didn’t have such a duty, we should want to to expose that truth to criticism for refinement, to encounter other’s truth, and to make the world better through the elimination of ignorance [the cause of evil]! You can never have too much truth! I agree that truth is an ideal, and i am more than happy to settle for validated/demonstrable fact in the meantime.

NO, NOT AT ALL, SILENCE IS GOLDEN, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO STFU

Fair enough, if you feel that way - then practice what you preach and don’t share your “truth” in the future. Simple. As for me, i like to learn from others and to communicate and that can’t be done through silence. Enjoy your monastery and quiet contemplation!

SO APPEAL TO CON-SENSES

As i’ve told you before, you have been spending too much time steeped in the flat earth - it’s bad for you. This isn’t a debate, which is a stupid game to keep morons busy - this is (supposed to be) an earnest discussion. It is not an appeal to consensus when you point out the fact that words have definitions, and that if you use different/opposite definitions you need to make that clear to the person you are discussing with if you want to communicate with them. It’s basic semantics/language, not appeal to anything.

OK, WHICH PERCENTASGE OF LIGHT BLOCKING?

Opacity is a scale, opaque is the maximum on that scale (100% of visible light to answer your question) - everything beneath that maximum is translucent and then the minimum - transparent.

Opaque means visible light blocking - not partial / not a percentage of it - all of it. The ground is opaque and so we can not see through it. If it were non-opaque we could see through all of it or colloquially - through some of it.

DEPTH IS QUITE PHYSICAL, ITS REALLY THERE

Who said it wasn’t? It is just that depth appears [looks] different because of the laws of perspective. In reality it is exactly the same as the other dimensions (length and width), just in another axis.

“ Do you understand what i am saying now?” YES

You misspelt “no”. You might want to read it again and try to understand it earnestly. If you still don’t understand what i mean, and/or disagree then ask questions and/or provide specific criticism. Repeating “No you’re wrong, la la la la i can’t hear you” over and over is not specific criticism, it is embarrassing childish stupidity.

APPERENT DOES NOT MEAN ILLUSION, IT MEANS ostensible rather than actual

If there is a difference between ostensible and actual - then there is a necessary component of illusion/misunderstanding involved. If you take offense at the word, insert a synonym - instead of “illusion” read “not actual”.

Then you’ll agree and stop bitching?

IT DOESNT MAKE THAT GROUND AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Right, as i said repeatedly - the ground is not an optical illusion (that would be stupid), the apparent rising of it is! As you said, it appears to rise but it isn’t actually.

BUT ITS JUST AN OPTICAL BATTLE OF TWO APPERENTS THINGS AND THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER

In terms of brightness - usually the deciding factor in “winning” (like with the stars during daylight) - the sun would always win.

Light can’t block other light, and though it can “wash out” dimmer light making it appear to us that it is blocked (like with light from the stars during daylight) the brighter light never “loses” in such “contests”.

In any case, your belief that it can cannot be demonstrated (on a smaller scale / repeatable controlled demonstration) which is another good indicator that it is wrong.

NO ONE SAID MAKING MODEL WAS EASY

I don’t care for models. I care about determining what is going on in reality, and that is NOT what models are for.

LOOK AT 25 PHOTOS OF A ZOOMED IN HORIZON WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THINGS PROTRUDING FROM THE HORIZON, NOTICE HOW THINGS BEFORE THE HORIZON ARE 3D WHILE THINGS BEYOND THE HORIZON ARE NOT

Photos are 2D. They cannot (and do not) contain depth. No matter where the photographed target is - closer than, beyond, over the horizon - it will always be 2D!

Do you have, or can you find, 2 photographs (any two photographs) where you think one has depth in it and the other doesn’t? It may help to convey what you are thinking/saying.

oH LOOK, ANTHER BASELESS CLAIM

As i’ve said before, what better base can there be for a claim than your own observations?! Go outside, watch a plane receding from you overhead. It will change apparent size as it does so. Take pictures so you can compare the size when overhead to the size as it approaches the horizon.

You really don’t seem to understand why things change apparent/angular size as they recede - otherwise you couldn’t believe that it would stop at some distance. You’re locked into defending some stupid position because you are trapped in a “debate” in your imagination (against yourself!). The sun doesn’t change apparent size MUCH, but that is no reason to get locked in to your position.

DID THE DEPTH DISAPEAR?

Yes! That’s what i’ve been saying to you this whole time. Depth comes from two eyes. Perspective doesn’t disappear (which causes the illusion/“not actual”/apparent tapering towards the vanishing point), at any distance. Depth disappears the moment you close one eye.

“your foolish pride” PROJECTION

I’m only trying to help you - for both our benefits, despite your protests and childish behavior. It is not pride that encourages me to continue trying to discuss/reach you. It IS your pride which prevents you from just no longer responding, communicating effectively, and enjoying this discussion which is about a topic you clearly/should have a great interest in!